1. Fundamental Differences Between IFRS and J-GAAP

IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) are global accounting standards developed by the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board) and adopted by many countries, particularly in Europe.

On the other hand, J-GAAP (Japanese GAAP, Japanese Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) are domestic accounting standards primarily used by Japanese companies and are mainly developed by the ASBJ (Accounting Standards Board of Japan).

IFRS aims to make financial statements more comparable for global investors, while J-GAAP is designed to align with Japan's legal framework and business practices.

IFRS and J-GAAP also differ in their underlying philosophies. Specifically, IFRS is a principles-based accounting standard. This means that only broad principles are outlined, and the specific application methods and judgments are left to the professional discretion of each company. This allows for flexible accounting treatment that reflects the entity's true economic substance but, conversely, requires meticulous disclosure of the basis for each treatment in the notes to the financial statements.

In contrast, J-GAAP is rules-based, with detailed rules and quantitative criteria specified for each transaction and account. While this promotes comparability between companies because treatments adhere to the same standards, it is less suitable for international comparisons due to its adherence to unique Japanese rules. 
 

2. Differences from a Balance Sheet Approach Perspective

IFRS and J-GAAP differ in how they view financial statements, particularly the Balance Sheet and Income Statement.

IFRS is also known as the "asset-liability approach," emphasizing the definition and valuation of assets and liabilities on the balance sheet, with profit being recognized as the change in these items.

Conversely, J-GAAP adopts the "revenue-expense approach," calculating profit by matching revenues and expenses on the income statement.

This difference manifests in specific accounting treatments. Under IFRS, the initial consideration is whether an item should be recognized as an asset or a liability, and revenues or expenses are recognized based on the resulting increase or decrease. For instance, in revenue recognition, IFRS recognizes revenue from the perspective of how much of the contractual performance obligation has been satisfied (i.e., the change in contract assets/liabilities on the balance sheet).

In contrast, J-GAAP has traditionally used the realization principle, where revenue is recognized when the delivery of goods or services is complete and the right to receive consideration is established.

However, in recent years, J-GAAP has introduced a "Revenue Recognition Standard" (effective 2021) that aligns with IFRS 15's five-step model for revenue recognition. Consequently, the differences between the two in terms of revenue recognition have significantly narrowed.

While international harmonization of accounting standards is progressing, and J-GAAP includes more standards that consider the consistency between the balance sheet and income statement, differences in presentation and timing of recognition still persist for some accounting issues due to the fundamental difference in their underlying approaches. 
 

3. Treatment of Fair Value Measurement and Its Impact

IFRS and J-GAAP also have significant differences in their methods for valuing assets and liabilities. While J-GAAP primarily adheres to the historical cost principle (valuation based on original cost), IFRS extensively adopts fair value measurement (valuation based on market prices).

Specifically, under IFRS, many items, such as financial instruments and investment property, are remeasured at fair value or marked to market. While J-GAAP also includes fair value measurement for marketable securities and disclosure of fair value information, the scope of fair value measurement is not as broad as in IFRS.

These differences in fair value measurement and impairment can significantly impact a company's financial statements. For example, under IFRS, changes in market conditions are more likely to result in immediate recognition of valuation gains or losses in the financial statements, leading to greater volatility in reported performance.

It is crucial for CFOs to understand the impact of increases and decreases in assets and liabilities due to fair value measurement on their company's financial metrics and, if necessary, provide adequate explanations to investors and headquarters. 
 

4. Adjustment Process for IFRS Adoption

For companies currently preparing financial statements under Japanese standards that transition to IFRS, thorough preparation and a meticulous adjustment process are essential. The main processes and key considerations that a CFO or head of accounting at a company will face during initial IFRS adoption are as follows:
 

Gap Analysis and Project Planning
First, identify the differences (GAAP differences) between current J-GAAP and IFRS. Clearly define which accounts and transactions require adjustments and establish a project plan. Consulting expert opinions and benchmarking against peer companies can be valuable here.

Determination of IFRS Accounting Policies
IFRS allows for many optional accounting policies (e.g., depreciation methods for property, plant, and equipment, or the use of fair value options). Companies must determine the accounting policies best suited for their group.

Preparation of Comparative Information and Restated Disclosures
In the first year of adoption, comparative financial statements for the prior year must also be restated under IFRS. Therefore, IFRS-based financial figures must be prepared for the comparative period.

Internal Systems and Infrastructure Development
To accommodate IFRS reporting, review and adjust the accounting system's chart of accounts and settings. This involves adding accounts not present in Japanese standards (e.g., contract liabilities, right-of-use assets) and modifying reporting packages to IFRS specifications. Education and training for accounting staff and relevant departments are also crucial to ensure practical understanding and appropriate handling of IFRS-specific accounting issues.

Audit Coordination and Disclosure Review
Financial statements prepared under IFRS must be audited by auditors proficient in international standards. It is advisable to coordinate with the audit firm in advance and reach an agreement on significant changes in accounting policies and estimates. On the disclosure front, IFRS requires a broader scope of notes, so it is important to collect necessary information and ensure comprehensive disclosure.

Explanation to Stakeholders
If financial indicators or figures change due to IFRS transition, it is essential to explain the reasons to investors, banks, and headquarters management.

Through these processes, companies prepare IFRS-compliant financial statements. While adoption requires significant resources and time, smooth transition is possible with meticulous project management and the utilization of expert knowledge. As a CFO, it is imperative to oversee these steps and establish a system for prompt decision-making and response when issues arise.
 

5. Examples of IFRS Adoption in Japan

IFRS adoption is progressing in Japan, particularly among global companies. A prime example is SoftBank Group, which introduced IFRS for consolidated financial statements from the fiscal year ended March 2014.

Key characteristics included the reclassification of sales promotion expenses from selling, general, and administrative expenses to a deduction from revenue, the on-balance sheet recognition of securitized receivables leading to an increase in assets and liabilities, the cessation of goodwill amortization resulting in increased profit, an expanded scope of consolidation leading to an increase in financial scale, and the recognition of preferred equity certificates as debt, increasing the debt-to-equity ratio.

Many other companies, such as Hitachi, Marubeni, and Fujitsu, have also adopted IFRS, and its impact on the Japanese capital market is significant. For CFOs, analyzing these pioneering cases provides crucial reference material for forecasting the impact of IFRS adoption and explaining it to stakeholders. 
 

6. Impact of Differences on Management Indicators

Differences in accounting standards also affect a company's Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). CFOs must understand how the following major indicators may change between IFRS and J-GAAP.
 

ROE (Return on Equity)
ROE is calculated as "Net Income ÷ Shareholders' Equity." As mentioned earlier, under IFRS, net income tends to increase due to the absence of goodwill amortization and the deferral of expenses from capitalizing research and development costs. Consequently, ROE figures differ between IFRS and J-GAAP, and typically, ROE improves immediately after IFRS adoption due to increased net income.

EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization)
EBITDA is a measure of a company's cash-generating ability, calculated by adding back depreciation and amortization of intangible assets to operating profit. EBITDA generally tends to increase with IFRS adoption. A primary reason for this is lease accounting. With the adoption of IFRS 16, what was previously recognized as operating lease rental expenses (operating expenses) is now recognized as lease assets and liabilities on the balance sheet, with expense allocation shifted to depreciation and interest expense. As a result, operating expenses decrease, operating profit improves, and since the expense is now recognized as depreciation, EBITDA effectively increases. CFOs need to adjust for discrepancies caused by differences in accounting standards when comparing their own and other companies' EBITDA.

D/E Ratio (Debt-to-Equity Ratio)
IFRS transition also impacts the definition and scope of interest-bearing debt. As noted, lease liabilities are brought onto the balance sheet, and IFRS may treat some hybrid financial instruments (such as subordinated loans and perpetual bonds) as debt. Consequently, total interest-bearing debt may increase under IFRS, and with changes in shareholders' equity, the D/E ratio (Interest-Bearing Debt ÷ Shareholders' Equity) or the equity ratio may deteriorate compared to J-GAAP.

As shown above, differences in accounting standards can formally alter a company's management indicators. It is crucial to avoid simplistic evaluations of IFRS-based figures as "good" or "bad" and instead employ methods for comparison on an equal footing. CFOs must explain management indicators, considering accounting standard differences, both internally and externally to accurately convey the company's true financial position.
 

7. Key Considerations for Global Expansion

For foreign-affiliated companies with headquarters abroad, addressing the differences between IFRS and J-GAAP is a challenge for group management. The following summarizes key points for establishing and maintaining a global financial reporting structure.
 

Reporting Consistency with Global Headquarters
Foreign-affiliated companies must align their Japanese subsidiary's financial reporting with the headquarters' standards. If the parent company adopts IFRS, preparing books under IFRS in Japan can lead to faster closing and reduced conversion efforts. Even if the Japanese subsidiary prepares statutory financial statements under J-GAAP, a process for converting them to IFRS standards for group reporting is necessary. CFOs should understand which items require difference adjustments in the package submitted to headquarters and incorporate them into the closing schedule for systematic processing.

Uniformity of Group Accounting Policies
Regardless of IFRS adoption, it is desirable to apply uniform accounting policies and estimation methods across the group. For instance, if useful lives for depreciation or inventory valuation methods vary among subsidiaries in different countries, adjustments will be needed during consolidation. While IFRS is principles-based and allows for a wide range of permissible accounting treatments, global companies typically establish detailed rules as group policies and require each subsidiary to adhere to them.

Personnel and Communication
For globally expanding companies, personnel who understand accounting standard differences and can communicate across borders are crucial. The Japanese accounting team should include members proficient in IFRS and international accounting standards, establishing a system for regular information exchange with the headquarters' accounting team. Sharing gap analyses quarterly and promptly responding to additional data requests from headquarters can lead to reliable group financial reporting.

Audit and Internal Control Coordination
In global companies, audit firms are often connected through networks, and audit coordination is also necessary. It is advisable to clarify issues in advance and facilitate information sharing between headquarters auditors and Japanese subsidiary auditors to ensure common audit procedures are applied to standard differences.
 

8. Conclusion

IFRS and J-GAAP have many differences, including fundamental accounting concepts and specific accounting issues. CFOs of foreign-affiliated companies are required to accurately grasp how these differences are reflected in financial statements, group reporting, and management indicators, and fulfill their accountability to headquarters and investors.

Particularly when considering IFRS adoption, prior impact analysis and the development of internal systems are indispensable. It will be crucial to formulate an appropriate accounting strategy by referencing prior cases.

Contact us

Complete this form and an RSM Shiodome Partners representative will be in touch.